|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Just to be clear fictional novels are fiction by definition, that is fact. Is it? Who decides what is "fiction" and what isn't? I put it to you that the prefix "fictional" simply refers to what people believe. The prefix "fictional" doesn't make something non-existent by definition. Voldermort (for example) is NOT non-existent by definition. Indeed as PaulK has pointed out it could conceivably be the case that Dumbledore has magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable. So why are you such a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to the existence of Voldermort?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggles,
Is it? Who decides what is "fiction" and what isn't? ... Is there a point to this that applies to the topic? There is objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fiction There is no objective empirical evidence contradicting this.
quote: So why are you such a "pseudoskeptic" ... Misusing the term doesn't mean it applies. We have objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fiction YOU have no evidence contradicting this.YOU have not supported your negative claim with objective evidence. ... I put it to you that the prefix "fictional" simply refers to what people believe. Including your belief that you have a theory? Seems pretty convenient to me: whatever you don't like is branded "fictional." Sounds more and more like some creationists here. Robert Byers for example. Invoking 'fiction' or 'imagination' to dismiss concepts rather than investigate them is not the enlightened, open minded path to understanding reality you seem to think it is. It is opposed to investigation and impedes further understanding. As human history and the steady march of scientific understanding shows, the dismissal of concepts as unfounded has been shown wrong time and again. Is fiction\imagination your version of a "god-did-it" explanation? Seems that way. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : . Edited by Zen Deist, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggles
Curiously, I was trying to clarify your position before getting to your questions. You talked about inconsistency before you listed your questions, so you must have felt it was more important. That is why I felt it necessary to clarify what you thought was inconsistent.
But you are going to need to clarify a few things with some actual explicit examples for it to really make any sense in a way that suggests it actually relates to real science rather than just your own ever changing but flawed set of charts and tables. (excellent formatting by the way). With that in mind how does your latest set of scales, charts etc. relate to the following: you must have missed this:
Message 123: If you agree to all of these, then we can move on to the issue of impediments to understanding, before we get to your questions. You have a bit of a ways to go before we get to those questions, work with me and we can get there sooner, so patience. If you claim they are flawed then why not take this opportunity to point out where they are flawed and how they could be corrected. If you are complaining about the changes, then do you think they make the information better or worse? Can you suggest ways to make them better? Now, I am open-minded, so if you want to suggest improvements, then I'm willing to consider incorporating them. Lets take Message 123 step by step. That would be constructive, don't you think? Enjoy Edited by Zen Deist, : r at end of subtitleby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggles
Now Message 123 Part 2a:
quote: Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no More to come. Enjoy Note Message 141 proposes modification as follows:
Edited by Zen Deist, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggles
Now Message 123 Part 2b:
quote: Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no Do you want to include subjective evidence (hearsay, anecdotal, beliefs, opinions, evidence that is open to interpretation)? It is part of our cognitive landscape, yes? PaulK appealed to it:
... missed the role of plausibility and other a priori arguments in contributing to our evaluations - or other issues, such as faith, dogma etc. ....
And we can still combine confirming and contradicting evidence to get the fuller picture -- 1a + 2a + 3b + 4b would add up to high confidence -- wouldn't you think? Is that an improvement, or is it getting unwieldy? I think it is a little cumbersome and seems to give more value to a lot of subjective evidence over a little objective evidence, and this conflict would be most apparent when one is confirming and the other is contradictory -- don't you think? I prefer the original table:
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no More to come. Enjoy Edited by Zen Deist, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggles
Now Message 123 Part 3:
quote: Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no I intended this to be about positions in general and not specifically about atheist\theist positions, so it may be appropriate to make it conform better with the Levels of Confidence Table. I would also move the zero point to be more appropriate:
Levels of Acceptance and Skepticism
+4 = Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty +3 = Strong acceptance - {X} is is considered most likely true, with very little uncertainty +2 = Medium acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty +1 = Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, possibly true, but some uncertainty 0 = Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is contradictory or insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncertain -1 = Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, possibly not true, but some uncertainty -2 = Medium skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty -3 = Strong skepticism - {X} is considered most likely not true, with very little uncertainty -4 = Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty And we could modify the Concept Level Scale to match:
This now sets the requirements to justify the different levels of belief in {X}, so this could also answer PaulK's objection. OR should we just use the concept confidence table for both accepted and skeptical beliefs, and not get tangled up in the shortcomings of the Dawkins Scale and any modifications of it? Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no Still more to come. Enjoy Edited by Zen Deist, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggles
Now Message 123 the wrap up
quote: Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no Now that wasn't too bad was it? Enjoy Edited by Zen Deist, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
Paulk writes: If I had intended to make such a claim I would have made it. My actual claim is that we do not have objective tested empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist. That is wonderful to hear PaulK. Welcome to the club. We are currently taking applications for new members. Our initiation process is different for every new member. Yours will be for you to use the above comment in a unbiased way relative to all discussions, including, yes, including, wait for it... bluegenes theory. Take care now.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? I can agree to the above with one proviso. The proviso is this - Where we have a known truth or high confidence concept where "conclusions regarding probable reality can be made" we are also able to make equally conclusive conclusions regarding mutually exclusive alternatives. For example: If we know that 0+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely true then we can know with equal confidence that 1+1=1 is axiomatically and thus definitely NOT true. If we scientifically know that the Earth is billions of years old and consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality then conversely we know that it is very improbable that in reality the Earth is just a few days, weeks or years old. If we scientifically know that the motion of a soon-to-be-dropped-pen will be consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics (gravity, aerodynamics etc.) and consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality then it is very improbable that in reality my soon-to-be-dropped-pen will behave as per the 1 second universe proposition. If we scientifically know that ALL filament bulbs produce light and heat as a result of electrical resistance and consider this a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality then it is very improbable in reality that SOME filamnet bulbs are being powered by untested supernatural means (e.g. ethereal salamanders). In short - Where we have an evidenced conclusion which is justifiably deemed "probable" mutually exclusive but untested conclusions can legitimately be deemed "improbable". Do you agree to my proviso?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Is there a point to this that applies to the topic? Dude you are the one who raised religious texts as a form of evidence in a thread called 'Scientific Knowledge'.
RAZD writes: There is objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fiction. There is objective empirical evidence that humans are deeply prone to invoking false positive agency (including - but far from limited to - supernatural concepts) in order to explain the things they find significant and baffling.
RAZD writes: There is no objective empirical evidence contradicting this. Ditto there is no objective empirical evidence contradicting the above as the cause of human belief in gods. So case closed then?
RAZD writes: Is fiction\imagination your version of a "god-did-it" explanation? You may have missed the fact that the ability and proclivity of humans to invent such concepts is somewhat more evidenced than the notion that god did anything at all.
RAZD on Voldermort writes: We have objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fiction. But you haven't tested the Dumbledore magical mind manipulation proposition so, by the terms of your own argument, you are a pseudoskeptic to reject it in the way that you are doing. That is PaulK's point. And he is quite correct to make it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Can you suggest ways to make them better? Now, I am open-minded, so if you want to suggest improvements, then I'm willing to consider incorporating them. Lets take Message 123 step by step. That would be constructive, don't you think? I do indeed. And with that spirit of friendship and helpfulness in mind I have suggested an additional component to your analysis. It is based on the principle of contradiction and is detailed in my post above subtitled 'Probables And The Corresponding Improbables'. Essentially it says that where something is legitimately deemed "probable" the law of contradiction stipulates that mutually exclusive alternatives must correspondingly be deemed "improbable". Call it 'Straggler's amendment'. Other than that keep up the fine work. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: but at a 5.7d level, not a 7 or 6+. Really? Really? Xongsmith — Pick up a pen. Now hold your arm out. In a moment I am going to ask you to let go of this pen to see what it does. But before you let go of the pen just stop for one moment and ponder. Ask yourself just how confident you are that the motion of the pen will be consistent with the objectively evidenced laws of physics. Ask yourself how unlikely it is that the pen will do something like loop the loop and poke your eye out or hover for a second before shooting out of the window. Ask yourself how unlikely you think it is that the pen will do anything other than obey the laws of physics as currently understood. Ask yourself how unlikely you really consider the proposition that the universe was created a few seconds ago with subtly different physical laws (particularly with regard to dropped pens) than the ones we falsely remember. Now honestly and truthfully consider whether or not very improbable is a fair expression of your conclusion. Now drop the pen. Honestly - What did it do? Honestly — Was very improbable a fair assessment of your conclusion before dropping that pen? Was your conclusion scientific? Was your conclusion pseudoskeptical? Was your conclusion consistent with a 6 on our old friend the Dawkins scale?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But but but....
Chuck you haven't done any tests to falsify the proposition that Dumbledore has magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable. Any rejection of this untested proposition is comparable to Ben Franklin standing in a field without a means to test for electricity. Isn't it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggles
Dude you are the one who raised religious texts as a form of evidence in a thread called 'Scientific Knowledge'. As a source of possible supernatural essence\presence that is not tested. Quite correct. And I have asked you et al for what your test is and what your methodology is that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results.
But you haven't tested the Dumbledore magical mind manipulation proposition so, by the terms of your own argument, you are a pseudoskeptic to reject it in the way that you are doing. That is PaulK's point. And he is quite correct to make it. So -- in other words -- you concede that there currently is no test method or methodology that can differentiate fictional concepts from potentially real supernatural presence\essence. You have taken the rope offered and laid out ... and blithely hanged your hypothesis as untestable, as you have now shown it to be, by your own arguments. Forget the IPU, you have shown that you cannot determine that a documented fictional character is actually fictional and not supernatural. Well done, I concede your point: it is untested. It is untested because it is untestable without a definitive test and a methodology that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results.
There is objective empirical evidence that humans are deeply prone to invoking false positive agency (including - but far from limited to - supernatural concepts) in order to explain the things they find significant and baffling. As opposed to the ability to find natural explanations through the use of human imagination and the testing of concepts, and where the scientific method discards concepts that are contradicted by evidence that shows something else. Not by the assumption that some concepts are false. Invoking imagination as the only explanation is limiting your ability to approach the issue of what is possible.
Ditto there is no objective empirical evidence contradicting the above as the cause of human belief in gods. So case closed then? That {the human imagination is the only source of some concepts} has in the past been shown to fail in the inference that the concept was pure fiction. This history of science is littered with cases that were initially dismissed out of hand, but that have been shown to be valid. All concepts originate in the mind :: that is how we perceive reality, through concepts of it. At best you can conclude that SOME concepts may be fiction. That still leaves you with the problem of identifying which ones are pure fiction and differentiating them from ones that have some potential or possible validity and then testing them. You still need to be able to differentiate fictional concepts from potentially real supernatural presence\essence. You still need a definitive test and a methodology that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results.
You may have missed the fact that the ability and proclivity of humans to invent such concepts is somewhat more evidenced than the notion that god did anything at all. Ah the tu quoque logical fallacy again. My cup now runneth over, my day's already complete Invoking imagination as the only explanation is limiting your ability to approach the issue of what is possible. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD on Voldermort writes: Forget the IPU, you have shown that you cannot determine that a documented fictional character is actually fictional and not supernatural. You cannot test the Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition. No. But I would vehemently deny that this is any rational basis upon which to consider Voldermort anything other than made-up. So where do you put Voldermort on your scale then RAZ? For the record I'm a 6 (+ some). Does this make me a Voldermort pseudoskeptic? What are you on your own scale with regard to Voldermort?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024